To think that if you send DC to independent school or home-ed you should not have to pay for state education?

I think I can see all sides of this debate, which came up amongst a group of friends and I today. The group was about 60% female and was socially quite mixed, with a range of ages, classes and income brackets. The topic of conversation came round to whether, if you do not have your child educated in the state sector but instead opt to home educate or send him to an independent school, you should receive a tax credit to reflect this which could go towards the cost of your choice of schooling.

The state school parents were perhaps the least enthusiastic but by no means did all of them reject the idea, whilst the home-eders had reservations about the cost of this plan in terms of restrictions on how they taught being implemented by a government anxious to tighten up home education law although they agreed that they would like the money to help them do the job themselves (which they told me was on average £5K p.a.) .

Interestingly, some of those who send their children to independent schools were not as anxious to see their money refunded as others - although whether due to social conscience or just being too darn well-off to care, I didn't like to ask!

Out of fascination I thought I'd post the question here - if I say that a tax credit should be paid under these circumstances, AIBU?

A fraction of your taxes pays for your dc's education. You pay for future doctors, nurses, teachers (including those who teach in independent schools), police, firemen...basically opt out or no you are still part of society and your taxes contribute to that.

I don't think we pay to service ourselves and our own. I think we pay to service the society in which we live. Which in its turn is in our own best interests, as our children will live in the society we shape for them, peopled by other people's children. I want them to be well educated.

But then, I'm a state school teacher, so perhaps I have a vested interest...

I've never used intensive care. I've never needed an ambulance. I've never needed the fire service. And I've never claimed an old age pension. But do you know, I think some other people out there might find these services rather useful! The very thought that I might opt out because I'm alright Jack, is quite preposterous.

no, that does not make sense because even people without kids or without school age kids still have to pay the same. so why should people be let off just because they have kids and dont send to state school?

I've always thought when people complain about things like this (also no kids but dont want to pay for other peoples) dont think of your taxes paying for now. Think of them paying for what you had, so your schooling and your birth etc.

The home edders argued that they are saving the system money by their choice. I gave the same argument as Bronze to a pro the idea independent Dad who agreed but pointed out that we already have tax credits for those on lower incomes who have children, and the childless paid, yet many are up in arms that they must do so....

I don't think it would work, and as others have said, if you opt of out that, what else can you opt out of? So, if you choose to have private health insurance, do you then claim a refund from the NHs, if you don't have children, claim a refund for not being able to claim child benefit, and so on.

I'm always puzzled by this argument. The way I see it, you don't pay taxes for your children to go to school, but for the education you received yourself, which was overwhelmingly likely to have been provided by the state. (Which is also what I think when childless people try and argue a rebate for themselves.)

And if your parents opted to educate you privately, then that was their lookout, and lucky them that they had that kind of choice.

I can't remember the last time I went to a doctor and I'm no whining about a refund, because I know if I DID want to go, it would be there for me to use. Exactly as state schools are to all private school pupils.

nope, no way, because then you'd have to give rebates to people who reach menopause or have a vasectomy having had no children at all...

then you'd end up only splitting the cost of state education between those who are actively using it - which would work out about the same price as private education and in no way affordable for most!!!

Another idea put forward was one similar to school uniform vouchers - that something similar should be given and that legislation demanded that they be spent on what they were meant to be spent on but WHERE parents spent them was their choice, be it state, private or tutors/books/stationery/pc for a home ed child, just as those with uniform vouchers must spend them on school clothing but can opt to go to M&S/Tesco/independent shop etc.

I have private medical insurance, therefore I should not pay as much towards the nhs; I don't drive, so take a bit more off for my lack of road use; I don't go out at night, so a bit more off for me not using street lights. Where does it end?

Quite clearly a ridiculous unworkable ludicrous idea. You don't get to opt in and opt out of society. I actually started to type out the reasons why it was stupid but decided I couldn't be arsed, it really should be clear enough.